Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Monday November 29, 2010 @01:28PM
from the every-day-a-little-more-evil dept.

recoiledsnake writes "Apple dialed its battle with Android up a notch today by banning an Android magazine app from its App Store, leaving no way for users to install the app on iPads, iPhones and iPod Touches without jailbreaking. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep, was: 'You know... your magazine...It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store.' The bi-monthly publication — the Android counterpart to an iPhone magazine Dixon began putting out earlier this year — launched Nov. 11. 'It's funny really because I don't think we would sell many magazines on Android through Apple App Store,' Dixon told Media Watch. 'But the question is where this is going.' This comes on the heels of Jobs lashing out at Android, calling it fragmented, and its patent attacks on Android."

This seems like an act of desperation. Is Apple that insecure that it can't allow a stupid app like this onto its platform? What, are people going to read about Android and immediately dump their iPhones? If the iPhone is that good, Apple has nothing to worry about. If it's not competitive with Android handsets, then Apple should fix the deficiencies.

So far the main problem with iPhone is how closed and censored the app store is, from the point of view of an Android phone user anyway.

You're right, I guess they are still selling a whole lot of iPhones, so it can't be damaging their credibility that much, but it's been enough to put me off buying one. For a company known for their good marketing this does seem like somewhat strange behaviour - it's pissing off some potential buyers and I honestly can't believe that it's doing that much good for Apple. I see their desire to exert some control (although I disagree with it), but they seem to be going about it in a rather unpleasant manner.

This epitomizes the reason I don't buy Apple any more. I've got an iPod Nano that is a couple years old and it is the last Apple product I will ever buy. I didn't even want to buy it at the time, but it was the best music player I could find - that isn't enough to sway me any more.

It's a damn magazine. There is no reason to deny it other than spite.

Apple can have the best hardware in the world, but that company and the man who runs it are pure ego, and I refuse to buy Apple products on principle.

IPhone is a huge chunk of their cashflow and their stock is now pumped up to the limits. In order to maintain price of their shares they need constant growth. I suppose they can't afford even a moderate margin loss on iPhone sales and Android has potential to cut quite deeply into their sales.

No. A monopoly only requires a lockout of all competition. It has nothing to do with market size. Such a monopoly may be natural (There's only one Mona Lisa), legally enforced (eg. Telecom companies), or the result of corporate manipulation. For example, if Spengler included a special connector that forced you to use only Spengler accessories on your Spengler Automatic Shoe Lace Tying machine, they would have a monopoly on producing accessories for Spengler Automatic Shoe Lace Tying machines.

And what about pretty-much every gaming platform under the sun?
The internet is free. The iphone executable platform isn't -- just like XBox, Wii, PS3.... et al.
Not to mention this article is total bullsh*t... anyone who has ever pondered the notion of "journalism" would rightfully question what was said between the elipses...

You seem to be saying that Apple's store is a monopoly, and that Android will prevail. Those seem to be contradictory statements.

As for the mobile phone market being a repeat of the PC market, I don't think that's likely. Apple may not continue to dominate, but I have a hard time seeing Android dominating, because while Microsoft could erect high barriers to entry in the form of Office and hardware licensing arrangement, Google has no such leverage with Android.

There's a huge distinction between purposeful bricking and potential bricking due to a bad interaction between user-modifications and official updates. Nowhere does that say that the bricking is intentional. Apple is warning that an update may brick the phone, and that due to the jailbreak, it won't be covered under warranty.

How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy?
Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.

How about a related industry analogy instead of a car analogy?
Like for instance, what if Dell decided that on your Dell computer, you could only install applications that they approved? Trying to install an HP printer driver? No, not approved. Trying to install Microsoft Media Player? No, only Dell's MusicMatch is approved.

How about if you bought a PS, PS2, PS3, XBOX, XBOX 360, GameCube, Wii, DS, PSP, etc. etc. and could only install applications that they approved. How about if you could only play protected music or copy protected DVD's / BluRay's on supported players without using illegal circumvention methods?

That's the problem. Phones/PDAs were always considered more like generic computers until the iPhone came along. But once a locked-in phone becomes popular, they're suddenly more like game consoles. WTF?

I had a Sanyo "web phone" before the iPhone and it only allowed me to install paid apps from their webstore and purchased ring tones. It was locked down and it existed for quite a few years before the iPhone.

Windows Phone OS (before Windows Phone 7) allowed users to install apps but that was because it was running on PDA formats with Phone functionality added on -- not on the modern generation of devices which are phone formats + media device with PDA stuff added.

Anyone can open a corner store and sell the same 3rd party items 7-11 sells. Anyone can buy the 3rd party items 7-11 sells from anywhere.

I can't shop for iphone apps elsewhere. I can even make iphone apps and sell them directly to consumers.

How about Best Buy? Should they be required by law to sell Sony laptops?

Irrelevant.

If I want a Sony laptop I can buy one from multiple places, including directly from sony.

I can't buy the "iSony app" except from Apple. I can't even even buy it directly from Sony.

As far as having 100% market share for iPhone apps, that is also a ridiculous statement. Sears has 100% market share for Craftsman products.

Not a valid comparison. Craftsman is Sears own product. Apple isn't making the apps in the app store. I have no issue that the Apple App store is the only place I can buy the Apple remote app. I have no issue that I can only buy apple computers from apple authorized dealers.

Why exactly do I need Apple authorization to buy non-Apple products?

Should they be forced to sell third party drill bits or extension cords for their Craftsman tools?

Of course not. But that's not the situation here. The question here is should Sears be allowed to prevent me from buying 3rd party drill bits or extension cords *somewhere else*?

Putthing this up as an alternative to allow the vendor to do whatever it wants is just feeding yourself the rope to hang yourself with.

Sooner or later they will tighten the noose; and a device will be manufactured that you can't easily break, or they'll pass a law making it illegal to break. Probably both.

One needs to vocally resist their grabs for control, so that we don't HAVE to resort to going underground to exercise the freedom we should legitimately have.

The recent jailbreaking victory is hardly a conclusive win:

All the Copyright Office has said is they're not going to prosecute jailbreakers.

"Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. ? 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking."

... it seems like someone with a business degree or someone in marketting simply made this decision...

Probably, but the decision made by the marketing person was probably to create the app and use the expected ban for free publicity and guerilla marketing. IIRC apps promoting certain competing products or services have been banned from day 1 of the app store. The ban seems to be long standing policy not a recent decision. Developing and submitting such an app seems like a public relations stunt. The marketing folks at the Android magazine seem to have done a great job at leveraging Apple policy for publici

Or is it merely long standing policy? Haven't apps promoting/offering certain competing products and services been banned from day 1 of app store development? Whether this policy is right or wrong is a different question, but this app rejection does not seem to be any sort of reaction to Android's recent successes.

Or is it merely long standing policy? Haven't apps promoting/offering certain competing products and services been banned from day 1 of app store development? Whether this policy is right or wrong is a different question, but this app rejection does not seem to be any sort of reaction to Android's recent successes.

"Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other mobile platform will be rejected." We're guessing this means you can't advertise your app in the App Store by saying it's also available on Android, or has been ported from BlackBerry, or whatever.

And yet, in a competition, saying that you're going to win before the race is over is not looked at as odd or unusual. And I'm not aware of many national anthems that start with "We're Number Two!" Or it could just be the Jobs Reality Distortion Field exhibiting harmonic disturbances due to passing through the Droid Nebula and becoming ionized...

I don't think it's desperation. Sure they see the threat of Android, but they are doing so well it shouldn't make that much difference.

No, this is hubris, plain and simple. They won't allow apps relating to Android because Android is not Apple and so they don't like Android. It's like the mean girls in high school who won't let the new girl sit with them. The new girl may be smart and pretty, but she's also a little awkward, so they make fun of her instead. They are popular, egotistical, and too full o

iFans would shit a golden brick if Microsoft banned iTunes from Windows 7, yet they apparently have no problem rationalizing the wielding of the mighty App Store banhammer against information about (not even an ad for) someone elses platform.

telling. very telling. Looks like I have one less reason to buy an iWhatever any time soon.

Aren't you forgetting about the monstrosity that is Quicktime? God how I hate that software. Even now you still have to buy the pro version to use the FULL SCREEN, basic functionality for a player.Luckily there's at least 1 alternative with hacked codecs.

Can you imagine the outrage if Amazon banned their partners from selling iPads? While Amazon themselves doesn't seem to stock it, they have about 100 partners that do, and handle fulfillment for some of them. Same for the Nook, Sony reader, and so on. They certainly don't go out of their way to promote them (though if you search for them they'll show up as recommendation on the front page, along with the Kindle) but they don't ban them just because they happen to compete with a product Amazon makes.

While I don't expect a company to promote or help a competitor, I don't expect them to be dicks either. How would people react if Windows refused to install iTunes and Safari because Apple competes with them? I imagine the whargarbl would reach critical mass in about 5 seconds, and a lawsuit would follow not long after.

And you let me know the next time you are on Alaskan, and find that they cut out magazine articles about Southwest from all magazines on board. Dumbass.
This isn't and ad, it isn't a flier, its a MAGAZINE, containing content. Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be able to read iTunes for Idiots on your Windows 7 machine, or a book on Cocoa programming on your Nook running Android?
This isn't someone choosing not to allow an app, this is censorship more than anything. This is Apple denying any news of their competitors from ending up on their products. Which is interesting, since they aren't Apple's products at all, they are YOURS, you paid for it.
This is certain to run afoul of anti-trust/unfair business practice laws, should someone choose to push the issue. As long as they set themselves up to be the sole supplier of applications for their platform, they hold a monopoly, and exerting it in such a way is wrong. This is fundamentally the same as the Windows/Internet Explorer lockdown, though even in that case, Microsoft held a high percentage of the market, but did not restrict you from installing someone else's product.

Some of us use an iPad for some things (namely being a reader), while owning an android phone. Myself, for example. I own an iPad specifically to function as an ebook reader, and as a magazine reader. I have a few games, but for the most part, I use it for reading stuff. I would be more than happy to read a magazine about android. And my platform of choice to read that? Either paper, or on my iPad. And apple just said I can't do that because it is throwing a 3 year old temper tantrum against its competition.

I would think the heart of the question is Who Owns the App Store? Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to sell particular items through their own store? If that's the case, who would you envision as the arbiter of what they should be forced to carry?

It would be different if Apple's app store were just one app provider, but it's the only way to get apps onto the phone!

If that's a problem for you, or if you generally object to their business practices, vote with your wallet and don't buy their phone. It's not like there aren't alternatives readily available. If you just gotta have shiny, jailbreak it.

If you can't see the difference between trying to control what the owner of a smart phone sees on his screen and what ads a restaurant puts in what is *there* property, then I posit that your average pile of dogshit on the front lawn has more brains than you.

No one is trying to control what you see on your phone, that is your imagination running away with itself.

Apple is choosing to offer or not offer a product through their own store. I don't see any justification at all for you to force them to do something they don't want to do.

Seeing as how that store is the only way to install third party applications on your phone (outside of hacks), then "controlling what you see on your phone" is EXACTLY what what is happening here.

This is just denial at this point. It'd be as if Steve Jobs was personally running around crazy bashing people's toes with a hammer and your response was "lets not get carried away and say that Steve is going to start bashing toes with a hammer". It's flat out refusal to accept reality.

On the other hand, I see plenty of ads for DISH Network on my DirecTV service. I see promos for one network's shows while watching a different network.

You don't see BK ads in McD's because the product in McD's is typically all 1st party. When your business is in delivering 3rd party content though, as is the case with the app store, the precedent has long been set that you accept content from your competitors.

This level of anti-competitive and just... asshole behavior has probably never been seen before, not even with Microsoft. How can Apple ever hope to become a serious part of community infrastructure when they display this level of disrespect for their customers? Is the fear that some bumbling iPhone user might accidentally install the Android magazine app and have a sudden flash of inspiration that iPhone is inferior? Why do we, as customers, take this? Not even Microsoft had the greedy foolishness to prohibit its competitor's software from running on their platform. Why don't we demand control of the devices that we have purchased? Lets hope that MeeGo can deliver a genuinely open phone experience. Ubuntu and Linux Mint both show how an app store could be done.

Where did you get the idea that Apple wants to be a part of the community? I thought the bulk of their selling point was that everything "just works." Sometimes, that means saying "suck it" to Flash. Sometimes that means building a walled garden and ignoring the people who just want to replace a battery. In this particular instance, I don't have a problem with removing an item from THEIR store that is just there to serve their COMPETITOR. From here, it sounds like whining that a Chevy dealership remove

It would be more like designing Chevy vehicles to drive only on roads that Chevy approves of. Then banning all roads that go near Ford dealerships.

What Apple is doing is unconscionable. I have always been anti-Microsoft, in this regard I was always pulling for Apple. But it's important to realize WHY I was anti-Microsoft. Namely because of their anti-competitive and asshole behavior. A set of behavior that Apple has perfected and made even more grotesquely anti-consumer, anti-choice and ultimately insulting to all intelligent customers of their products. At least Microsoft had enough respect for you to give you a choice. Now you have nanny-Apple deciding what you can and cannot install on the device you purchased and now legally own.

If you actually read [macworld.com] or listened to the earnings call it would be hard to describe what Jobs did as "lashing out". Really the poster just repeated another news story that described it as "lashing" out. In reality, Jobs stated his opinion on Android and Google. He has some points in there and some of which people would disagree with, but he didn't raise his voice or throw a chair or anything like that.

I've started a company dedicated to making unique mobile apps -- the current product has no peer among Android apps because it's literally impossible to do the same thing in the current Android APIs, and so it's iOS-only. Do you think Google will let my company advertise in their conferences and meetings, or include my company's logo among the others they show off when they're advertising Android? Given that Android can't do what my app does, we're not even direct competitors and should therefore be brothers-in-mobile-innovation. Surely, they'd welcome us as an advertiser (if not highlight us among developers) and let us have a presence on the floor of any Android conferences, because to not would be evil or -- according to you -- it'd be lashing out at me in anger. I like Google, so that would be hurtful.

Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS? Also, you can submit an app to Android market which does nothing but promote your iPhone app. It will get on the Android Market place because there's no approval process. Sure, it may get bad ratings. Even if it's taken off the store, Android users can still download it from your website without jailbreaking their device.

The only thing I could possibly think of is recording a phone call while it's happening without any stupid speakerphone tricks (this is a problem because of the hardware, not the software, for what it's worth), but Android phones are actually better here because those APIs have the possibility of supporting this, if some phone manufacturer decided it's important. iOS? Oh, only one person makes that hardware, so you're SOL.

And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."

Same principle.

Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.

It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.

And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."

Same principle.

Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.

It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.

in a column that dealt with Jobs’ recently announced intention to police apps for violations of Apple’s new (and undisclosed) rules against porn. I suggested that Jobs was overreaching—and, maybe too, a little messianic and off his nut. (I did not know then that his cop mentality would soon enough involve actual police action.)

The stated reason for the rejection of my free app is that Apple requires "sufficient amounts of content to appeal to a broad audience." Putting aside the fact that this pretty much makes specialty content ineligible for iPhone or iPad apps, it’s also a pretty fudgy standard. For instance, I get a bigger readership for my online columns than I do for my Vanity Fair columns—so Vanity Fair shouldn’t make the cut?

I see it as kind of funny, really.Most Iphone users are very happy with their phones and I don't see them likely to switch- not due to a magazine app, anywayThe main thing I see this doing is again emphasizing how tightly Apple restricts content on the Iphone, and how limiting that is.

I DO know a few people who have chosen to get a different phone because of this.I also know a couple of people who have switched from Iphone to Android because of this.

More likely, it was a mistake, or a poor judgement call of one user. It's happened before, and lots of rejections have been re-instated without much fuss. Dollars to donuts, I'll bet this one gets approved just fine, and probably would have even without this level of outrage.

Microsoft gets sued for simply including it's own browser in it's OS, meanwhile Apple literally trys to prevent its users from even know a competing product exists by limiting their access to actual journalism. Where's the EU now? Where are the antitrust lawsuits? Imagine if Microsoft wouldn't allow you to go to Apples website?

Actually, they are in more of a monopolistic postition than microsoft was. Microsoft has at dozens of other OS's that can run on PC Hardware. Apple is the ONLY OS that can run on theirs. You're locked in a contract, can't put any other OS on the phone and they won't let you see competing products on that phone. At least with a PC you could tell MSFT to go stuff it and install Ubuntu or something. With the IPhone you literally have to throw the device away and pay huge fines. Seems worse than a monopoly to m

The key part you are missing here is ILLEGAL monopoly. IM not going to get into a semantics argument about what level of 'monopoly' Apple holds. But LEGALLY, it is nowhere near a true monopoly in the context of the law. Having a walled garden is not illegal. Please dont confuse mindshare with monopoly status. Apple is in no way anywhere near 'microsoftian' levels of monopoly power, not by a long shot. If Android and blackberry didnt exist, then yeah MAYBE Apple could approach a monopoly, but then theres still Sony, LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola most whom have at least some form of roll-their-own mobile OS. All of them make competing and viable products.

Apple's biggest effect on the marketplace is most often people REACTING to Apple, not Apple's actions themselves. Apple says 'We are reducing Flash's importance on our platforms' and the world gasped.

The sooner Apple signs up other carriers besides AT&T (or just completely OPENS the damn thing) the better for their sales. The major thing driving Droid phone sales is that you can have one WITHOUT the AT&T albertross around your neck. Consumer reports and others have rated wireless networks, Tmobile and Verizon rated much better than you know who. Many people have said they will buy an iPhone when they can use ANYONE BUT AT&T.

how many times will apple learn this lesson? If you try to control every thing and all the software you open the door and eventually the Developers will go to a platform they can actually develop on (Android).

Can someone enlighten me as to why a dedicated piece of standalone software is required to display words and some pictures? I thought HTML had that covered. Ohhh, or is this all about DRM? Are we Slashdot readers lamenting the fact that a piece of proprietary DRM-riddled software was rejected?

... I bet this was just one of those dumb little things and will probably get overturned very soon. I know Apple has denied some things in the past for questionable reasons but something like this--a harmless little magazine--sounds to me more like it belongs in the "Never attribute to malice..." category.

I am so tired of these individuals and groups trying to replace already-long-solved problems with their own private apps. Why do I need an NPR podcast app, or an ESPN app, or a Digital Story app? I can already access all their content easily through a web browser. I can already subscribe to, and automatically download, their podcasts. There is no real benefit to me as an end user from using these apps - it actually makes the process of accessing their content more difficult, and even the most casual observer can see any purported added value content being offered is of little interest or value.

So now these publishers want us to read their magazines and newspapers through their individual app? How is this different than a web paywall, exactly? I personally have nothing against subscriber-only web content - but if that model isn't working, why do these guys think doing the exact same thing but calling it an "app" is going to change anything?

Why would anyone think replacing one web browser and one general program for listening to podcasts with 50+ separate apps is a good thing?

Okay, back on topic. This rejection is wrong, and Apple should correct it ASAP.

They shouldn't be required to promote the competition, but banning the competition on your platform can get you in trouble.

As a 100 billion dollar gorilla, they need to be careful when it comes to antitrust and perception.

Imagine if Internet Explorer refused to load apple.com, or Microsoft refused to allow iTunes on Windows.

But they're not banning the competition on their platform - you can still visit android.com via safari, or any number of competitor's websites. This is them merely saying "we're not going to give the competition space on our servers." The comparison to IE or iTunes would only be apt if Microsoft hosted all of the sites you visit and applications you install.

The only way to load software is through the App Store, and the App Store is banning an app that they feel is focused on a competitor. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products. Apple's anti-competitive practices are actually worse than Microsoft's. The main reason they haven't caught as much flak is that they've been seen as the plucky underdog with 10% market share.

If you seriously believe that "Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust merely for bundling products" you need to do a bit more research. Microsoft created code designed to degrade users' experiences when using competitors' products (DR DOS etc). Microsoft threatened hardware vendors into carrying only Microsoft Windows OS on their machines. Microsoft restricted browser choice in the OS, claiming it couldn't be removed (and continuing to claim that even when it was demonstrated that they were lying about it). Etc. Even today it's difficult to purchase a new non-Apple computer without purchasing Windows; major manufacturers such as Dell have only offered low-end machines with limited options compared to the rest of their PC's.

As bad as Apple's recent behavior has been, Microsoft has always been more evil.

Your analogy is flawed- Wal Mart and Best Buy are two competing companies. In the article presented, Mediaprovider (a company that makes eMagazines, including one about the iPhone- i.e., not a direct competitor to Apple) wanted to sell one of their products through apple's app store.

So, it's more like Amazon or Borders selling a book about public libraries. The money wasn't going "to Android" and away from Apple in the way that an "Amazon order kiosok" would funnel money to Amazon, and take it away from Bor

Well it is probably more along the lines of buying a book on Amazon from Borders. I can understand why they did this, but I am not sure that it was the right move to make. I should be able to buy a book on Android from the Apple app store and a book on iOS from the Android market place. It could seem like a way of promoting competition, but it could also show that even Android users and developers prefer to use the iOS based devices for their reading - a nice little irony.

Actually, it would be more like stocking the BestBuy catalog in the magazine section at Wal-Mart. But really, to fully understand this situation, someone will have to develop a Car Analogy.

But I agree: iProducts are not "open" platforms, they are a branded product that delivers an Apple "experience". There's really no reason Apple should be expected to allow the competition to promote itself on their product, it doesn't make business sense.

So, when can I come by your house to print some documents on your printer? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, as refusing to let me use your resources to distribute my content would be "censorship" after all...

The free market means that a business is not *required* to do anything for anybody. It cannot however prevent you from going to another business or starting your own. That's the whole point of the free market. You cannot compel businesses, businesses cannot compel you. The cost of acting outside of a given

So, when can I come by your house to print some documents on your printer? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, as refusing to let me use your resources to distribute my content would be "censorship" after all...

So, when I show up for the free printing party, hosted at a place that makes it's living off of printing, and they let all the white people in and I get turned away for being an anthropomorphic green robot, they were just making a "business" decision, right? Seems to me that plenty of "business decisions" were made in the run up to 1968 that later turned out to be generally accepted as *terrible* ones.

Yes, I get that this is headed for a Godwin. The owners of said "massive content distribution system" nee

I don't know if free market is intertwined with the concept that censorship only happens with governments, there's some overlap and some orthogonality too. I do think that free market means that you don't have to let your resources be used in the promotion of a product that competes with your own. Would Wal*mart stock a book that's positive about Target? Would it really be censorship if Wal*mart chose not to stock that book?

It's largely an unnecessary app, especially being an app whose only purpose is to de

This is like Slashdot not permitting a story about Engadget, or Amazon refusing to sell a book about Borders. Both of these situations are ridiculous, of course Slashdot will post stories about Engadget, and of course Amazon is going to sell a book about Borders or Barnes and Nobel or any of their other competitors.